Quote:
Originally Posted by Judtech
So if some passes the test by 1 point are they decent? What about a perfect score? Words like 'suggest' and 'likely' also leave a lot of room to be interpreted. Something can be just as 'unlikely' as 'likely'. If you have to 'suggest' something then it obviously not something that is readily apparent. I am all for minimum standards and requirements to participate, but any sense of real measure should be as real world as possible, like say a camp setting. IMO you can get a better idea of how good an official is by watching them in 'their' environment which is on the floor, not in a chair taking a test.
|
You think camps are a
real measure....I can't think of anything more subjective than a camp.
What you can't get in a camp is the players to create a variety of scenarios. Most games go smoothly and you don't really get to see that side of the equation. Even if 1 or 2 things happen, it doesn't really expose whether an official knows what is going on or not overall. They may wing it and get lucky....or the evaluator doesn't know the rule (I've seen that occur). You'd need to watch dozens of games before you'd see an official faced with enough situations to know if they knew the rules.
Passing by 1 point "might" be decent, I don't know from that alone. Nor do I know from a perfect score alone. It takes a balance across all attributes....stronger performances in one area can make of for the others but it can't completely replace it. I'd even agree that on-court observations is the most important element but I think fitness and rules knowledge (that can only be covered in a test-like environment....without considering the exact format of the test) are also relevant.